Arkansas Defendant Saved by the Tweet

A juror’s tweets during trial were enough to convince the Arkansas Supreme Court to reverse the murder conviction of a death-row inmate and order a new trial. Law Blog wrote about this case last month, when it was argued before the state’s highest court.

The defendant, Erickson Dimas-Martinez, was convicted in 2010 of robbing and shooting a teenager, Derrick Jefferson, after a party. His lawyer said the juror’s tweets violated the trial judge’s instruction not to post on online or otherwise communicate with anyone about the case.

Dimas-Martinez’s request to replace the juror, as well as another juror who kept dozing off, were both denied. The state Supreme Court said both acts amounted to juror misconduct and by themselves were grounds for overturning the conviction.

But let’s focus on the tweets. The first went like this: “Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. We each define the great line.” After the defense lawyer brought it to the judge’s attention, here’s what transpired:

Court: Now, it has been brought to my attention that during — during the course of the trial that you have from time to time, uh, twittered, whatever that is. Have you?

Juror: Um, I twittered like day three in court or, you know, something about — not necessarily the case but just the time link about the court.

Court: All right. But you haven’t –

Juror: Not discussed any of the case.

Court: Well, I want to ask you about a specific twitter and, uh, I want you to think about it and then tell me what it means.

Juror: Okay.

Court: Okay. It’s says: ”Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken. We each define the great line.” About 20 hours ago via text. Now what does that mean?

Juror: What it means was, um, not only like to pertain to this case but also to future stuff. Um, obviously, whatever we as a jury decide — you know, I’m not necessarily saying I know what’s going to be decided, but we have to decide — make a huge decision… So what I was meaning by that was, you know, we have to define the great line of, you know, where we stand on a subject and, you know, what we have to choose — decide in the future. And also “Define the Great Line” was an Underoath album*, and I thought I’d throw that in there along with my tweet.

Court: Well, have you already made up your mind in this case what you’re going to — how you’re going to vote?

Juror: No, because I’m waiting for the other 11 to help me come to a conclusion.

Court: All right.

The circuit court ruled that even though the juror admitted to disregarding the instruction not to tweet, it was not a “material breach of my instruction or of his oath.” And then the juror tweeted at least two more times during deliberations in the sentencing phase.

“If its wisdom we seek. . . We should run to the strong tower,” read one. Later the juror tweeted, “Its over” [sic] — nearly an hour before the jury announced it had reached a sentence.

In an unanimous opinion, Justice Donald Corbin wrote, “Because of the very nature of Twitter as an on online social media site, [the juror's] tweets about the trial were very much public discussions. Even if such discussions were one-sided, it is in no way appropriate for a juror to state musings, thoughts, or other information about a case in such a public fashion.”

Corbin also asked Arkansas Supreme Court committees on criminal and civil practice to consider whether jurors’ access to mobile phones should be limited during trial.

For the most part, courts have been unwilling to overturn verdicts because a juror blogs or tweets about a trial, writes Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at Dayton University, on his Juries blog.

Corbin, in his opinion, said Dimas-Martinez’s was distinguishable from previous cases because his argument wasn’t that the tweets had a prejudicial impact against him, but that the juror’s failure to follow the judge’s instructions did.

Corbin also pointed out that one of the juror’s followers was a reporter, and so media had advance notice that the jury had completed its deliberations before an official announcement was made to the court.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

A federal judge in Manhattan rejected a bid by the conservative advocacy group Citizens United to stop New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from requiring that charities disclose to him their major donors.

Concerns about a gender gap in the legal profession tend to focus on issues like pay, billing rates and who makes partner. A new study by the American Bar Association looks inside the federal courtroom to see who's trying cases.